Channel 4’s Race Season
Does science support racial prejudice
Consider this: two women are sitting side by side; one woman is black, the other white. Physically their differences are obvious, but what about mentally? Could one be, by virtue of her race alone, less intelligent than the other?
The notion that black people are inherently less intelligent than their white counterparts is not a new argument and is rarely met with anything other than fervent contempt, criticism and the denunciation of those who would dare to utter such a concept, as promoting a culture of racism. When, in 2007, Nobel Prize winner and respected scientist James Watson referred to black people as being less intelligent than whites the scientific world condemned him, white supremacists praised him and the concept of differences along racial lines was sullied and brushed away.
Until now.
Starting Monday 26th of October, Channel 4 begins a new series on race entitled Race: Science’s Last Taboo aimed at ‘debunking the myth that science supports racial prejudice’. In a series of 5 programmes fronted by the likes of Rageh Omar and Krishnan Guru Murthy, this week-long series features programmes including How Racist Are You?, Is It Better To Be Mixed Race? and Bleach, Nip, Tuck: The White Beauty Myth examining how science has played a role in the understanding of race, how racial differences have been exploited over the years and the quest by some members of ethnic minorities to surgically acquire the physical traits associated with European beauty.
As another Black History Month draws to a close it’s almost impossible to ignore the flecks of contention which have run through it. Radio 1’s interview with leading members of the British National Party and the BBC’s decision to invite Nick Griffin on to Question Time has, inevitably, led to arguments over providing those with racially prejudiced agendas a platform to air their views.
Yet, is it not through the discussion of these views that opinions can be changed? I for one welcome the potential this series of programmes may hold.
Check our TV listings section to know when the next programme is on
I thought this programme gave a biased view and felt that the people in the documentary were pawns in the film makers game to represent their own racist attitudes towards ethnic minorities. Every time they mentioned the differences towards white and black people the tone was always negative such as, when they were mentioning that black skin was 10x more likely then white skin to cause dark scaring- how does that relate to what the individual in question issues were. Then towards the end of the show they sneakily added in that black people want European bodies as well. I think the programme altogether had a hidden agenda, which is probably in no doubt has to do with the fact that Barack Obama a black man has been elected for president. In fact it never mentioned the fact that white people use tanning lotion a lot or etc.
Hello,
Channel 4′s programmes are available on demand on their websites. Not sure if you can check it from the US though:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo/4od
Can somebody Tape/Youtube it so we can see in the U.S.A.
Bleach, Nip and Tuck (Channel 4, 10pm programme 27 Oct 2009)
After watch this programme I was so outraged and believe it’s not right that Channel 4 can air such nonsense propaganda and think it’s all good. I am not normally one to say anything leave alone take the time out to write a letter but I think Channel 4 and the makers of the programme are now really trying to push it and people need to stand up and make them self be heard because this B.S can not be allowed to continue.
My thoughts on this programme, I think it was total wrong, very insulting, biased and racist. The fact that they had an African woman insulting Africans says it all. I think Channel 4 needs to be clear about their motive because I concluded that this programme was nothing but a big campaign to push their race ideas and we thought we only had the BNP to deal with! In fact they may actually be worst than the BNP because with the BNP we have an idea of what their agenda is.
These were some of my thoughts, what do you think?
What was the point of the programme? If it was to highlight, expose, educate or whatever, why was the obvious facts and real issues that are more common missed? Especially in the case of the black woman. (When I saw her, I thought they were going to address the issues she has with her hair and skin colour). The programme could have been the same and titled different as I don’t believe the issues featured were partially race related but it was structured in such way to distract and confuse people from the real issues. When has breast reduction ever had anything to do with race? B.S
I believe that the programme was very out of context. I understand we all have issues but for channel 4 to exploit these people for whatever agenda they have is wrong. It was quite clear the people featured in this programme have serious issues and therapy, other than surgery may have been more suitable. As I said before the main focus for the programme was to push the idea of white beauty as the ideal beauty and that’s what people are in search for.
One another big thing is that if this programme was about deracialising oneself, why was the focus only on the not Europeans. Doesn’t the search for big bums and big lips exist, not forgetting that x amount of Europeans that are always in search for darker complexion. Why was all this excluded from the programme? Also why wasn’t the root of these ridicule ideas, ie that white is the ideal beauty not addressed?
The most outrageous thing about the programmes is that, this is the month of celebrating Black History and these are the types of programme that Channel 4 chose to view, for me it’s clear what their games are!
We all need to write to Channel 4 to them know about their programmes.
Thank You
I am finding the Channel 4 Race season thoroughly depressing and the content lacking in quality/substance .
Was it intentional to focus on ‘MAINLY’ negative topics….It seems every program has focused on the dumbing down of ethnic minorities. Where is the balance ??? UNBELIEVABLE !!! If this is modern day then I am truly saddened for these people, but even more sad for CH4 for they are hell bent on portraying solely the uneducated in the community.
The suggestion is not to ignore these people who have made it their lifetime achievement to be ‘white’ and who are focusing all their energies on self loathing..whether it be by breaking their legs to look taller, (how odd), breast reduction/enlargement, skin lightening etc etc, BUTTT in the role reversal, when white people engage in this type of activity, WHO ARE THEY STRIVING TO BE LIKE ? and why has CH4 never aired a progamme to suggest that when white people burn the sh-t out of their skins, and participate in endless tanning, enlarge their breasts/penises, then they are striving to be like black people. Sounds ridiculous to me, but what’s the difference ???
Very disappointed that the programs were taking this negative direction, it could have been so much more positive and well balanced. There is a world of talent that could have been tapped into. What a shame !!!
I am least interested as to who is intelligent or who is beautiful. How can one define beauty or intelligence in a singular definition? The underlining factor here is the freedom of speech, in whichever arena that it is expressed, it should be welcomed. I am Black British of African heritage, I know who I am and what I am, an ethnicity box cannot define my cultural beliefs, my values or my history. Because of this confidence, I think I shock people, mostly black people when the issues of race are raised. At home, I was taught who I was and told to identify people by their culture rather than the colour of their skin, I was brought up to believe that I can achieve success beyond the barriers of postcode and borders. It’s like a line from Micheal Jackson’s Black and White song, “I’m not gonna spend my life being in a colour”. Children should be taught at home about their heritage, we cannot leave it to the schools to do that, as parents, we should install in our children a sense of identity, a sense of belonging, that is the strongest tool which can used to combat racism or discrimination. Yes, the colour of my skin is black because that is what that can be physically defined, but take a sample of my DNA, you would be surprised by the result. I am of African heritage, but I am a product of different African nations and tribes which have integrated together over centuries. Can a box define that? No. I have respect for my culture and other people’s cultural beliefs and however people choose to define who they are.
Bruce Lahn & Lanny Ebenstein have recently written in Nature an article entitled ‘Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity’
“Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.
A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity’s chief assets.
…..
Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.”
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/Lahn.pdf
Just looking at the site I see that they’re committing what’s known as the Lewontin Fallacy. That is, 93% of variation is between individuals and 7% between groups.
This is true for individual genes but it ignores correlations. When you look at the correlations people fall into recognisable population groups. Geneticist Armand Leroi explained this in the NY Times a few years ago.
“But this is not true when the features are taken together. Certain skin colors tend to go with certain kinds of eyes, noses, skulls and bodies. When we glance at a stranger’s face we use those associations to infer what continent, or even what country, he or his ancestors came from – and we usually get it right. To put it more abstractly, human physical variation is correlated; and correlations contain information.
Advertisement
Advertise on NYTimes.com
Genetic variants that aren’t written on our faces, but that can be detected only in the genome, show similar correlations. It is these correlations that Dr. Lewontin seems to have ignored. In essence, he looked at one gene at a time and failed to see races. But if many – a few hundred – variable genes are considered simultaneously, then it is very easy to do so. Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia – more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html
Personally, I would rather these things were aired than kept under lock and key in dark corners. Everyday people make judgements based on foolish notions and misplaced ideas, if as it claims, this programme presents a clear, scientific counter for the racist nonsense then it’s more than welcome.
At the end of the day though, science is subjective (which may be a surprise to some), you can prove any hypothesis if you try hard enough.